Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes, we did. Why would it need to be scary? Why would it need to be dire chaos? Why is it that parting with the EU can't be better than what we had within, albeit different? Only those who refuse to contemplate the reality of the EU paint that picture. Leaving the EU means nothing unless those we're trying to negotiate it want to make it harder than it needs to be and create problems for both sides. The Eurocrats would want to do that to send messages to other nations who might be tempted to leave. Let's face it we've never heard the EU talk about anything other than more of the same, expansion, single European state etc etc. There is no status quo option, just an inexorable march towards the final goal. It's their way or the highway so in what way can the UK be blamed for that particular brand of intransigence and in what way would the UK's future be better/more secure/less scary within a political union which is clearly heading, by its own admission, in only one direction? Frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing one Eurocrat or another telling the UK that they won't do this, won't have that, won't accept the other and blaming us for the lack of progress. It's laughable. They're the ones who're reusing to negotiate at every turn and whatever people think about the ineptitude or otherwise of the UK's approach to this. It's perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that the EU's own dogma is the reason for any lack of progress.

For those who really believe the UK would be better off in the EU just have a think about where it's headed and how it's gone about it so far. Do you seriously think that if we were to remain and at some future point decide we don't like it, that leaving would be somehow easier that it's proving now? Well if you don't think it'd be easier and you're already of the opinion that the current situation is untenable how on Earth would we ever be able to get out of the club at some future point years down the line? The EU's raison d'etre isn't to allow members to freely come and go, it's to force them to stay together by hook or by crook. It's that intransigence and utter contempt for the nation state which is going to be the EU's ultimate downfall and it isn't going to be pretty.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Because we're leaving the world's largest single market. We're counting on a vague frictionless trade deal to compensate.

What happened before we joined is rather immaterial as we don't live in a 1950s world anymore and irrespective of what people 'felt' back then post-War Britain was not a thriving, economically successful, place anyway and pre-War we had an Empire.

And we were told by Brexiters they would be desperate for a deal. Now we're told we shouldn't want one anyway. Project Fear were warning that striking a deal with the EU, who have a vested interest in making it difficult. The only advantage we have is the recovery of the Eurozone makes them less cornered but at the same time might leave them feeling more confident.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If all that's the case why are we the only one out of 27 countries that wants to leave and there are others desperate to join ? Do they know something we don't ? There are bureaucrats everywhere; the govt. is desperately trying to hire masses of them to replace the eurocrats, after making many redundant over the last 20 years. i'm not kidding you people are having to share desks, sit in corridors because they haven't planned for such an influx of staff, most of them young poor quality degree graduates that have been rejected from elsewhere and don't know their backside from their elbow. It is utter panic stations in Whitehall, no preparations were made for Brexit, and no plans have been made for 'no deal'. The politicians bluster and lie, but it is the 'faceless bureaucrats' that will have to pick up the pieces and no doubt get the blame. At least they'll be British I suppose, however all the quality British bureaucrats took redundancy or went to the private sector long ago...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

We didn't join the EU until 1974 so it's relevent to consider the UK's fortunes in the early seventies to that shortly after joining: The UK experienced the highest inflation rate in it's history for several years peaking at a mind boggling 25%, stagnant growth and industrial chaos. A co-incidence?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

What's the 1950's got to do with it?

All of that is just fine but based upon the EU being a better, more secure, more stable place to be and it just isn't. Look around and see what's happening there right now - politically as well as socially. In spite of all the unemployment, right wing extremism, simmering financial woes etc etc you seem to think that the EU is impervious to disaster, financial or otherwise. The UK can negotiate perfectly adequate trade deals with other nations or trade with the EU just the same as many other non-EU countries do without a trade deal. How on Earth does anyone else survive outside the EU I wonder?

Anyway there really is no point in going over this stuff again and again. I have my opinion you have yours we're not going to agree so time to call it a day methinks. ;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I couldn't agree more.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Not acceptable to you and not considered leaving by you. It obeys the result of the referendum just fine and, across the populace, the 'Norway' option is, or at least was, the most acceptable option.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Yes, democracy does demand that. Democracy is an ongoing process that doesn't stop at one point and no democratic decision should be unable to be undone by democracy.

EDIT: Wait a minute? It's hard line to want to remain in the SM/CU? Dread to think what the opinion of those who want to remain in the EU and all its institutions is.

Hard line is those people who want to leave now, no deal, nothing, in complete contravention of the evidence. Flights would be grounded, we'd have no way of obtaining nuclear fuel, we'd have no way of trading internationally having left the CU as no-one has systems in place to trade with the UK and the UK has no systems in place to trade worldwide but it's hard line to want to remain in the SM/CU?

EEA membership carried 2/3rds support pre-referendum and is the least-damaging option economically for the UK while permitting the UK to make its own trade deals, including with the EU, and retain the benefits of the Single Market. It does not mean remaining in the Customs Union so Liam Fox gets to carry on his taxpayer funded jollies, done via EFTA it means dispute resolution is not through the ECJ. It opens up Articles 112-113 of the EEA agreement permitting unilateral measures to control FoM, which is not unlimited, and who knows perhaps even the immigration target obsessive Theresa May would direct the Home Office to use the powers we've always had to control immigration from the EEA - have no job you're out after 6 months, crack down on abuse of self-employment, properly count people in an out.

Pretty funny that so many of those more zealous about Freedom of Movement of labour have been huge fans of a former Home Secretary that never bothered to enforce the controls she did have over immigration from the EU.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

It doesn't need to be scary unless we make a mess up of it, which we are doing.

As far as trade and relationships with the EU goes it can't be better than what we had within.

The UK negotiating team agreed months ago to the sequencing of the talks: financial settlement, rights of citizens and Northern Ireland to be resolved before talks on future relationship. Shouldn't have agreed to that if we weren't going to follow it.

You'll forgive me if I don't take too seriously the views of someone posting the kind of material you did on the Catalonia thread as far as the UK-EU relationship goes. I see absolutely no acknowledgement that the UK isn't helping itself in these negotiations, blame being shifted to 100% the other side, and the attitude that they should give us all we want and be grateful.

That's not happening. Time to get real, we're running out of time and must get this right.

I'm aware some on this forum are of the opinion that they will never regret their vote to leave the European Union, presumably whether the economy see a recession, trade becomes difficult, unemployment spikes, etc, they'll still be proud that they stuck it to the Eurocrats, but I am not one of them.

I never foresaw anything other than EEA membership as the result, the most appropriate place for a nation that should've never left EFTA.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Yes. I believe you are old enough to remember the issues surrounding the UK's economy at that time. I believe unions received much of the blame, closed shops, heavy state subsidy of industries, too much was nationalised, etc. To try and imply that the UK joining the EEC was to blame for the UK's extreme structural problems, at the time, and by implication that the UK had no issues before 1973 (we joined the EEC in 73, not 74) that would be responsible is crazy.

Pretty funny that people blamed Labour and were fans of Thatcher for what she did to transform our economy and apparently the 70s are now the EU, or EEC as it was then's fault. :)

EU evidently caused the UK's structural problems of the 60s and 70s, including the 1972 miners' strike, Three-Day Week, the worldwide energy crisis and the extreme industrial strife of the 70s.

The EU have a lot to be criticised for. That however is a silly insinuation backed by zero evidence.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

Mostly within multi-lateral trading blocs.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2017/10/7.png

Your suggestion that a 'perfectly adequate' trade deal along the lines of, say, CETA, would be okay for the UK is simply wrong. That would be second only to 'no deal' in terms of damage to our economy. Whether you like it or not our economy is heavily intertwined with the EEA's and untangling that without causing damage takes time and, if the end result is not a deep trade deal well beyond a standard FTA, a lot of time.

I've no interest in changing your mind, it's very clear your opinion is not based on evidence so further evidence isn't going to do anything. In common with many others that desire the 'hardest of hard' exits from the EU you're unable to supply anything but platitudes and 'faith' to support it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

"no way of obtaining nuclear fuel" Are you sure about that?

It will end up as a "Quid pro Quo", europe needs somewhere to recycle nuclear waste and we've been doing it for them since 1957.

The EU seems to be the one who wants it cake and eat it ATM.
So, they want us to take ownership and control of material owned by Euratom! Better to return it to Euratom and say, it's yours, you won't deal with us have it back. Or they can say "You're doing this for us and we'll deal with you if you continue to do so".

Even forgetting about the present european stockpile awaiting recycling at Sellafield what is the EU going to be doing with the rest they produce after brexit? It's not just a matter of setting up a recycling plant.

Link (may be firewalled.)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

If the EU export raw materials to the UK without agreement they are breaching Euratom. It's not there for comedy value. There's no 'quid pro quo' to be had, a comprehensive agreement has to be struck.

The alternative is we just walk off and the UK AEA see 2/3rds of their turnover disappear. We aren't reprocessing for free. Good plan.

Incidentally, we refuse to take their waste they can always send it to the La Hague site instead - it has 200 tonnes of capacity per year free apparently, then the plutonium to Marcoule.

So, yeah, that's probably what'd be done with at least some of the waste. We don't have a monopoly on reprocessing in Euratom.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Austria on course to elect worlds youngest leader and it could be more bad news for the EU.

http://news.sky.com/story/austria-on...eader-11082955

Re: Brexit discussion
 

How a no-deal vote could stop Brexit and make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister

http://news.sky.com/story/how-a-no-d...ister-11082601

Re: Brexit discussion
 

One major mistake that was made was issuing Article 50 before they clearly knew what they wanted and then calling an election that made matters worse!.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I make that two major mistakes. :)There have been numerous more including having a stand-alone Brexit department.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The only thing that is certain, is that we know more what we don't want from brexit than what we do.

Staying within the single market is impossible, as that is tied to freedom of movement.
Staying within the customs union is impossible, as that would tie our hands in dealmaking.
Paying a fortune in settlement or subscription is unacceptable

Re: Brexit discussion
 

On the other hand, there is no mandate for a cliff-edge Brexit.

If you feel that there is a majority in favour of a cliff-edge Brexit with the additional costs and job losses that it will cause, why not ask the public with a referendum on this very point?

Yes, the Britsih electorate have spoken. But they didn't say what you think they may have said.